Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt?

[RawDog]

When we can have both btc (BU) and Core/Blockstream (BCB) co exist, why not treat Core like another Altcoin similar to the real Bitcoin (BU)?.

Why can't both compliment each other?

[1713295194]

1713295194

[calkob]

When we can have both btc (BU) and Core/Blockstream (BCB) co exist, why not treat Core like another Altcoin similar to the real Bitcoin (BU)?.

Why can't both compliment each other?

I find this whole "its an altcoin thing really stupid"  to me if a fork has the transaction history of what we call bitcoin now then how is it an altcoin?  i might not like the fork but i cannot say it is an altcoin.

[newIndia]

When we can have both btc (BU) and Core/Blockstream (BCB) co exist, why not treat Core like another Altcoin similar to the real Bitcoin (BU)?.

Why can't both compliment each other?

Core will be an alt coin if it changes the hashing algo.

[Holliday]

We can have both. BU wants to attack any chain which isn't BU though.

Obviously supporters of each side are going to call the other side the "altcoin".

[felipehermanns]

Becouse Bitcoin is the legit one, not like this BU that is a joke with lot of bugs and issues.. I am an amateur talking here but history shown that people want the safe side not the bug side..

BU wont survive, just look how bug it is, I said before and I will say again: BU is like you have a son and you are on disneyland with your son and you give your son 20 billion dollar and say: Go have fun I don't care what you do with my money.. that is BUg unlimited

[franky1]

We can have both. core wants to attack any chain which isn't BU though.

Obviously supporters of each side are going to call the other side the "altcoin".

remember core have been REKTing xt, classic, bu and bitcoinj

yet BU want consensus of all diverse nodes working together.
its core with the ban hammer and blackmails (bip9, UASF, PoW algo change) not the other way round

[Carlton Banks]

Maybe we should just accept that everything will be called an altcoin if BU forks away, there is no objective original when there's no agreement on which it is.


Does it matter? I want the best coin, not the bit coin.

[franky1]

Becouse Bitcoin is the legit one, not like this BU that is a joke with lot of bugs and issues.. I am an amateur talking here but history shown that people want the safe side not the bug side..

you think core is perfect..
hmmm 8 years of orphans - https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks  (if perfect there should never be a orphan)
major orphan event in 2013

even now
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

oh and need we forget. if core is soo perfect then segwit is not needed because there is nothing to "fix"

20 billion dollar and say: Go have fun I don't care what you do with my money..

you do know there is not actually 20 billion in fiat sat around in bank accounts with bitcoins name on it

[ingiltere]

There's only one Bitcoin and its abbreviation is BTC, not BU. It's clear that you're shilling for a fork. Why not discuss this in altcoin section since you fork Bitcoin you created an altcoin.
These Bitcoin Unlimited altcoin supporters might want to change their strategy since it's not useful here.

[jonald_fyookball]

There's only one Bitcoin and its abbreviation is BTC, not BU. It's clear that you're shilling for a fork. Why not discuss this in altcoin section since you fork Bitcoin you created an altcoin.
These Bitcoin Unlimited altcoin supporters might want to change their strategy since it's not useful here.

Segwit is a fork too.  So segwitcoin would be an altcoin right?

[AgentofCoin]

There's only one Bitcoin and its abbreviation is BTC, not BU. It's clear that you're shilling for a fork. Why not discuss this in altcoin section since you fork Bitcoin you created an altcoin.
These Bitcoin Unlimited altcoin supporters might want to change their strategy since it's not useful here.

Segwit is a fork too.  So segwitcoin would be an altcoin right?

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins.

[franky1]

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins.

yes they can
and thats where the fake sales pitch of the reddit script writers have fooled you

by only talking about the best case scenario of soft
and worse case of hard.. but not mentioning all the options

[AgentofCoin]

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins.

yes they can
and thats where the fake sales pitch of the reddit script writers have fooled you

by only talking about the best case scenario of soft
and worse case of hard.. but not mentioning all the options

I don't go on reddit.

Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-contentious softfork?

[franky1]

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins.

yes they can
and thats where the fake sales pitch of the reddit script writers have fooled you

by only talking about the best case scenario of soft
and worse case of hard.. but not mentioning all the options

I don't go on reddit.

Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-contentious softfork?

see now your twisting things

soft can be consensus meaning no split.. or contentious possibly split or bilateral guaranteed

by you intentionally saying non-contentious.. your baiting...
try
"Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-consenus softfork?

and your answer is bip9 has code in it to trigger banning and orphaning..
oh and UASF does too.. i think you can guess what the S stands for

[AgentofCoin]

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins.

yes they can
and thats where the fake sales pitch of the reddit script writers have fooled you

by only talking about the best case scenario of soft
and worse case of hard.. but not mentioning all the options

I don't go on reddit.

Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-contentious softfork?

se now ur twisting things

soft can be consensus... meaning no split.. or contentious possibly split or bilateral guaranteed

by you intentionally saying non-contentious.. your baiting...

try
"Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-consenus softfork?

and your answer is bip9 has code in it to trigger banning and orphaning..
oh and UASF does too.. i think you can guess what the S stands for

I don't bait.

My understanding was that softforks do not create a chain split since the miners are the
leaders and nothing is lost, and my understanding was that hardforks do create a chain split
because that is the mechanism that enacts the "upgrade".

So, if I am incorrect, please explain how a softfork split occurs.
Do not cite BIPs or UASF which from day one I disagreed with.

Please explain simply.

[franky1]

well you did add the "non-contentious".. rather than just ask about soft..
but here goes.

for clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

in short PoolA simply ignore and automatically reject blocks of certain version. and they just build on their own.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

by pools doing this. they can keep building their own without halting just by looking at the version and declining it. without even validating its tx contents

what you will find it that there are 2 chains. growing forever.. but because its soft. the non-minin nodes(hard) will get confused be and swapping between the two dependant on height (non-mining node mega orphan drama(causing hard controversy) which then forces the nodes to pick a side just so the nodes dont see the orphan drama causing a hard bilatral split.. or remain with the orphan controversy mega orphan drama of endlessly swapping

but with or without non-mining nodes the pools are building 2 chains and not fighting, just ignoring each other

[AgentofCoin]

well you did add the "non-contentious".. rather than just ask about soft..
but here goes.

for clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

...

in short PoolA simply ignore and automatically reject blocks of certain version. and they just build on their own.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

Ok, I understand all that.
Are you saying that when Miners/Pools "activate" the softfork, there is literally a new chain?
From what you provided, if there was a new chain, the nodes wouldn't be able to see the miners
anymore since they are not participating, they are literally blind and still on the same chain.

If a softfork chain split is possible, why do old nodes still read the same blockchain?

This is what I don't understand. If it was a new chain, they are lost since they didn't upgrade.
A softfork "tricks" the nodes with new rules without an upgrade or a chain split.

Where am I wrong here?

Edit: You added more to your post: So you are saying there is a chain split and the nodes
are bouncing between the two chains with two different rules depending on "most work"?

[franky1]

Ok, I understand all that.
Are you saying that when Miners/Pools "activate" the softfork, there is literally a new chain?

no.. im saying
there are 3 possibilities.. well 6 in total of what happens.
depending if its consensual (one chain all agree, opposer's just left dead in the water unsynced)
or controversial they dont agree but they fight it out with orphans and swapping chains drama and headaches and double spend risks etc
or bilateral, by ignoring and thats when there is 2 linear nonfighting chains

as i said too many people just take soft and only mention softs best case.. then take hard and only mention hards worse case

From what you provided, if there was a new chain, the nodes wouldn't be able to see the miners
anymore since they are not participating, they are literally blind and still on the same chain.

it all depends on circumstance there are 6 possible results.. not 2

If a softfork chain split is possible, why do old nodes still read the same blockchain?

This is what I don't understand. If it was a new chain, they are lost since they didn't upgrade.
A sfoftfork "tricks" the nodes with new rules without an upgrade or a chain split.

Where as I wrong here?

dependant on whats been changed. yes while the POOLS(soft) are either endlessly fighting or going separate ways
the non-mining nodes could also be in the orphan drama or just not getting relayed anything.. leaving them stuck and unsynced.

like i said for months.. its not a simple yes no answer multiple things can occur.

but based on BU refusing to bilateral split and only want consensus.

if BU got consensus.. nodes such as BU,classic, xt and other including some core nodes that did tweak their blocklimit will carry on.
the blockstream(core) that refuses dynamics or shifting to a higher base block would be left stuck and not syncing. dead in th water

however core are threatening soft bilateral. which then can allow corefanboy pools(soft) to build on by ignoring dynamic pools.
and then that leads the nodes(hard) are in controversy because of orphan drama.. because there are 2 chains(but core would orphan the dynamic one) eventually leading to nodes(hard) doing a bilateral, to avoid seeing the dynamic block just to stop auto orphaning them by just being blind to them.. meaning it becomes a hard bilateral split.

excuse the pun... its not a trigger.. its a CHAIN of events

[franky1]

Edit: You added more to your post: So you are saying there is a chain split and the nodes
are bouncing between the two chains with two different rules depending on "most work"?

your trying to ask a question about chain of events,

but its not a 2 answer question.
also we can speculate all day long about will core actually pull the trigger to their bip9 early(possible) if they would UASF or even PoW banish.

without knowing if core will trigger it at say dynamic vote of under 50%... or wait for things to get very threatening for core by waiting for majority on dynamics side of 75%-95%

the chain of events can alter

[AgentofCoin]

Ok, I understand all that.
Are you saying that when Miners/Pools "activate" the softfork, there is literally a new chain?

no.. im saying
there are 3 possibilities.. well 6 in total of what happens.
depending if its consensual (one chain all agree, opposer's just left dead in the water unsynced)
or controversial they dont agree but they fight it out with orphans and swapping chains drama and headaches and double spend risks etc
or bilateral, by ignoring and thats when there is 2 linear nonfighting chains

as i said too many people just take soft and only mention softs best case.. then take hard and only mention hards worse case

So then in the most simplest form, a "fork" within the softfork termonology is
indeed a new chain separate from the pre-softfork chain. Correct?

If a softfork chain split is possible, why do old nodes still read the same blockchain?

This is what I don't understand. If it was a new chain, they are lost since they didn't upgrade.
A sfoftfork "tricks" the nodes with new rules without an upgrade or a chain split.

Where as I wrong here?

dependant on whats been changed. yes while the POOLS(soft) are either endlessly fighting or going separate ways
the non-mining nodes could also be in the orphan drama or just not getting relayed anything.. leaving them stuck and unsynced.

This above statement can only occur if there is indeed a new chain.

...
but based on BU refusing to bilateral split and only want consensus.

if BU got consensus.. nodes such as BU,classic, xt and other including some core nodes that did tweak their blocklimit will carry on.
the blockstream(core) that refuses dynamics or shifting to a higher base block would be left stuck and not syncing. dead in th water

Yes. I already understood that aspect.
The confusion was that I thought you are not splitting the chain but performing a "insert"
within the same chain. That is how I understood it (a restriction level applied to the same chain).

however core are threatening soft bilateral. which then can allow corefanboy pools(soft) to build on by ignoring dynamic pools.
and then that leads the nodes(hard) are in controversy because of orphan drama.. because there are 2 chains(but core would orphan the dynamic one) eventually leading to nodes(hard) doing a bilateral, to avoid seeing the dynamic block just to stop auto orphaning them by just being blind to them.. meaning it becomes a hard bilateral split.

excuse the pun... its not a trigger.. its a CHAIN of events

I don't care about bilateral splits since that is outside of Consensus in relation to my question.
I have no idea if CORE will or will not perform a second hardfork that is bilateral.



So, basically a softfork is a chain split in the same way a harfork is a chain split.
I understood a softfork as a restriction layer added to the current (only) chain.